I think people should be careful doing Reiki

[lottieandmia22]

This post assumes a belief in spirituality so I'm not interested in debating that specifically. If you want to please start your own thread.

From what I can see, reiki is channeling occult energy through people's bodies and is therefore potentially risky. It seems to me that new age practitioners will repeatedly say they don't believe in malevolent entities but I think this is naive.

One of my friends told me that his dad was never the same after he became involved with reiki.

And also nearly everyone I've met who has done it was told by the reiki practitioner that they are 'special' have a 'gift' or could easily become a reiki master.

No medicinal remedies were offered, and none taken. My Secondary ammenorhea is a prime example of the power of the brain controlling the body and has been a huge lesson to me in not dismissing the importance of such

Or it was a complete coincidence, and what you think happened didn't. You're not proof of anything at all.

I have atheist leanings about most things, but I do find the 'if it can't be proved to exist then it doesn't exist' sentiment in this thread more than a little ignorant.
So do many famous scientists and philosophers.

'Science without religion (faith) is lame, religion (faith) without science is blind' - Einstein. (IIRC)

It wasn't a coincidence that after a period of 12 months 'dry' a Dr gave me non-medicinal advice and that advice worked. No.

If my periods are 'woo', then the Dr's in the NHS are practitioners of 'woo' then.

Laughable!

OP don't go.

I am trained to level 2 Reiki. I only practice on family members and friends and never charge.
It's a lovely technique.

What does the training consist of, and who accredits it?

but I do find the 'if it can't be proved to exist then it doesn't exist' sentiment in this thread more than a little ignorant

it might be, but that isn't what people are saying. It's been said 500 times already, but once more for you: It's that these things have been proved not to work/exist. With facts and science and logic and lovely things like that.
We have proven that these things do not work.

Imagine if we had a time machine and travelled back to a time when many illnesses and conditions weren't understood by science. There was no "evidence" for them, they seemed to be invisible. We're all standing in the town square. Some of the people there had these illnesses. Who would be the ones dismissing, laughing and ridiculing them.

No. Everyones experiences are different. Facts are not. Facts do not change based on any of those things

Weeping when people talk about 'everyone's truth's' being different they are referring to the fact people's perceptions of the objective truth vary across individuals and societies. This is commonly observed and studied. Any type of information is processed and understood differently by different individuals. Our language used to communicate our understanding and experiences is far from being absolute too. Language evolves over time, usage varies and a significant amount of the etymology of words is rooted in traditional metaphors.

"but I do find the 'if it can't be proved to exist then it doesn't exist' sentiment in this thread more than a little ignorant"
It's not that way round. It has been actively proved not to work.

magpie none of that changes the point that facts are immutable despite any variance of culture and experience.

Imagine if we had a time machine and travelled back to a time when many illnesses and conditions weren't understood by science. There was no "evidence" for them, they seemed to be invisible

Of course there was evidence for them, they had the symptoms! If there was no evidence of a disease, you would not have a disease. People may not have understood why they had a cancer, but they could see the tumour. The ancient greeks understood epilepsy better than the victorians.

You have mixed up understanding the cause of and treatment of a disease with knowing there is a disease.

Er ... what does Reikki have to do with Religion or Philosophy? Why are you here?

Tabby the practice involves a whole belief system of how it works. Of course this is associated with religion and philosophy!

You and Magpie are the only people who have been rude on this thread.

Please state which (parts of) posts are rude and why you think they are rude. Everyday is a learning day.

Is reiki a religion then? Or what philosophy does it fit in to?

A friend offered me reiki when I was ill after surgery. I am absolutely clear that there is no medical benefit from this - but I felt honoured that she was wanting to contribute to my recovery and my spirits were lifted by her kindness. And the sessions were gentle and relaxing.

That's nice, mishappening, and if you were aware that there was no medical benefit its fine. It's lovely that you enjoyed it in that way.

The problem arises when people do beleive that it has medical benefits an are lied to about what it can do for them.

Of course there was evidence for them, they had the symptoms So would you take that persons word for it that they had those symptoms.

What are you talking about? Doctors, even two thousand years ago, used their eyes, ears, hands, noses etc as well as the history and description of the patient, exactly the same as now. Do you have a point of any kind?

Anyway, back to Reiki. From the International Reiki Federation:

The life force is responsive to thoughts and feelings. It becomes disrupted when we accept, either consciously or unconsciously, negative thoughts or feelings about ourselves. These negative thoughts and feelings attach themselves to the energy field and cause a disruption in the flow of life force. This diminishes the vital function of the organs and cells of the physical body

Reiki principles state that negative thoughts and feelings diminish the function of the organs and cells of the body. So negative thoughts cause physical illness? Can anyone tell me how it can be harmful to people to suggest that they have cancer because they have negative thoughts, for example? And then tell them that Reiki can help to heal it?

Fair enough if you don't want to answer.

I did answer. It's right there.

you might want to ask a question that makes some sense if you want further answers

bfg Reiki does not have to fit into a particular philosophy, that you know of, for it to include one. The OED definition of philosophy is this:

philosophy
NOUNplural philosophies*

1mass noun The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
See also natural philosophy

Reiki involves philosophy because it involves a particular belief system and world view concerning the nature of reality and existence at the crux of its practice.

I did answer. It's right there. No other words were required apart from a yes or no. But I'll leave at that.

The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline

This is your definition? Reiki does not study any of those three things, and is not an academic discipline.
Did you mean to c&p something else?

bfg I quoted from the Oxford English Dictionary definition (OED)! Do you not regard the Oxford English Dictionary as an authority on the definition of words in the English language?